4 ms·

>The activist asked, “How much more burden can we put on our environment?” I think activists deliberately talk past each other on this. It seems clear that the

>The activist asked, “How much more burden can we put on our environment?” I think activists deliberately talk past each other on this. It seems clear that the apartment tower puts a larger burden on the very local environment, and having people spread out in single family homes puts a larger burden on the global environment. Both seem like important considerations, and you can't make informed policy decisions if you refuse to acknowledge 50% of the argument.

warinukraine 4y ago
Kalium 4y ago
I suspect the idea is to convince people there isn't another 50% of the argument. If you can do that, you're most of the way to winning the argument because you've manage to discredit so much as the idea of disagreement.
the_gastropod 4y ago
People have to live somewhere. And the per-capita environmental burden is obviously in favor of density, no? I'm not sure I understand this distinction you're trying to draw.
- bittercynic 4y ago
  The word 'environment' has strong emotions attached to it, and there's not universal agreement to it's meaning. Environmental impact doesn't just mean CO2 emissions, or water usage. For those things, I think most people agree that higher density is preferable. Our environment can also refer to the things that have a direct and immediate impact on our experiences, and density often comes with noise, crowding, diminished sense of community with the people you see near your home... Maybe we all need to get used to the inconveniences that come with higher density, but refusing to admit that there are inconveniences seems dishonest. It's that refusal to admit inconveniences that I meant to point out.
  - voisin 4y ago
    > diminished sense of community with the people you see near your home FWIW, I think most “New Urbanists” would argue that density increases sense of community. Rather than living in a soulless suburb where everyone stays indoors or in their backyards, and ventures out for literally every activity (unlikely to be interacting with the same community in many contexts), everyone lives, works, and plays in a densely built city, likely doing all of the above in a few city blocks and interacting with the same people in many contexts. In my experience, having lived in incredibly dense cities and incredibly sparse rural areas, I agree with New Urbanists (but I do certainly see the pros and cons of each style of living).

warinukraine 4y ago

Kalium 4y ago

I suspect the idea is to convince people there isn't another 50% of the argument. If you can do that, you're most of the way to winning the argument because you've manage to discredit so much as the idea of disagreement.

the_gastropod 4y ago

People have to live somewhere. And the per-capita environmental burden is obviously in favor of density, no? I'm not sure I understand this distinction you're trying to draw.

bittercynic 4y ago
The word 'environment' has strong emotions attached to it, and there's not universal agreement to it's meaning. Environmental impact doesn't just mean CO2 emissions, or water usage. For those things, I think most people agree that higher density is preferable. Our environment can also refer to the things that have a direct and immediate impact on our experiences, and density often comes with noise, crowding, diminished sense of community with the people you see near your home... Maybe we all need to get used to the inconveniences that come with higher density, but refusing to admit that there are inconveniences seems dishonest. It's that refusal to admit inconveniences that I meant to point out.
- voisin 4y ago
  > diminished sense of community with the people you see near your home FWIW, I think most “New Urbanists” would argue that density increases sense of community. Rather than living in a soulless suburb where everyone stays indoors or in their backyards, and ventures out for literally every activity (unlikely to be interacting with the same community in many contexts), everyone lives, works, and plays in a densely built city, likely doing all of the above in a few city blocks and interacting with the same people in many contexts. In my experience, having lived in incredibly dense cities and incredibly sparse rural areas, I agree with New Urbanists (but I do certainly see the pros and cons of each style of living).